How Flexible is Tool Use in Eurasian Jays
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
ABC 2020, 7(3):270-287
Animal Behavior and Cognition DOI: https://doi.org/10.26451/abc.07.03.02.2020
©Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)
How Flexible is Tool Use in Eurasian Jays
(Garrulus glandarius)?
Piero Amodio1*, Markus Boeckle1, Sarah A. Jelbert1,2, Ljerka Ostojić1,3, and Nicola S. Clayton1
1Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, UK
2School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, UK
3Institute for Globally Distributed Open Research and Education (IGDORE)
*Corresponding author (Email:pa393@cam.ac.uk; piero.amodio@cantab.net)
Citation – Amodio, P., Boeckle, M., Jelbert, S.A., Ostojić, L., & Clayton, N.S. (2020). How flexible is tool use in
Eurasian jays (Garrulus glandarius)? Animal Behavior and Cognition, 7(3), 270-287. doi:
https://doi.org/10.26451/abc.07.03.02.2020
Abstract – Eurasian jays (Garrulus glandarius) do not habitually use tools, yet they can be trained to solve object-
dropping tasks, i.e., to insert a tool into an apparatus to release a food reward. Previous research suggests that these
jays can learn a preference toward functional tools – objects allowing them to obtain a food reward placed inside an
apparatus – according to their density (Cheke et al., 2011). However, it is not yet known whether they can also select
functional tools (tool selectivity) according to other physical properties such as size and shape and use different
kinds of tools to solve a similar task. Here we conducted three object-dropping experiments aimed at exploring these
abilities in Eurasian jays. In Experiment 1, jays tended to select large stones as tools irrespective of the diameter of
the apparatus. However, jays progressively developed a preference for the small tool, which was functional with
both the wide and the narrow apparatuses. In Experiment 2, only vertically oriented long stones could fit into the
narrow apparatus, whereas both long and round stones were functional with the wide apparatus. Jays showed a
preference for the long stone and, with the narrow apparatus, tended to achieve the correct manipulation after one or
more unsuccessful attempts. In Experiment 3, jays were able to use sticks and adopt a novel technique on the same
object-dropping apparatus, thus providing the first evidence that Eurasian jays can use sticks as tools. Taken
together, these results do not support the notion that tool selectivity abilities can be found in Eurasian jays but
nonetheless show that these corvids can use different kinds of tools to solve similar tasks.
Keywords – Corvids, Eurasian jay, Physical cognition, Tool selectivity, Tool use, Stick tool
Corvids are a family of large brained birds thought to possess remarkable cognitive abilities (Emery
& Clayton, 2004). One iconic expression of this sophisticated cognition is their skill in solving physical
problems by using tools. The most prominent example is the New Caledonian crow (Corvus
moneduloides), a species considered to be among the most proficient tool users in the animal kingdom.
These birds are, together with Hawaiian crows (Corvus hawaiiensis), the only corvid species currently
known to develop tool use behaviors in the absence of training (Kenward et al., 2005; Klump et al., 2018;
Rutz et al., 2016). Individual practice and social input, however, appear to be essential for juvenile New
Caledonian crows to acquire some of the more complex tool behaviors habitually performed in the wild,
such as the manufacture of hooked stick tools or stepped pandanus tools (Holzhaider et al., 2010;
Kenward et al., 2006). Growing evidence indicates that, although relying on an inborn predisposition for
manipulating objects (for a review see Amodio et al., 2018), tool use behaviors in New Caledonian crows
may entail complex physical cognition. For instance, tool manufacture in these crows varies across
populations and represents an example of behavioral tradition (Hunt & Gray, 2003) that, according to a
recent study, may be sustained through a mechanism of mental template matching (Jelbert et al., 2018).
Amodio et al. 271
Furthermore, New Caledonian crows have been observed to build composite tools (von Bayern et al.,
2018), solve sequential tool use tasks (Taylor et al., 2007; Wimpenny et al., 2009), and – when presented
with a multi-access apparatus – acquire food rewards by using up to four alternative strategies involving
two different tools (i.e., sticks and balls, Auersperg et al., 2011). It has also been reported that New
Caledonian crows can select or manufacture tools of appropriate length to acquire out-of-reach baits
(Chappell & Kacelnik, 2002; Hunt et al., 2006; Knaebe et al., 2017), choose the most suitable raw
materials (e.g., plant species) to shape hook tools (Klump et al., 2019), and distinguish between light and
heavy objects by observing the movement of objects in the breeze (Jelbert et al., 2019).
In some of these studies (e.g., Chappell & Kacelnik, 2002), no evidence was found that crows
learned to select the functional tools over trials. This finding suggests that New Caledonian crows may be
capable of tool selectivity, here defined as: the ability to flexibly select tools that are functional to obtain a
reward without having previously learned the contingencies between the physical properties of the tools
and the associated outcomes on the specific apparatus. In other cases, however, it is problematic to take
crows’ performance as evidence that they can infer whether a tool is appropriate to solve a task by
evaluating the physical properties of the objects. For instance, Hunt et al. (2006) found that New
Caledonian crows could not craft tools of appropriate length before the first attempt at extraction. Most
often, birds initially tended to carve out tools that were too short to acquire the reward, and after one
failed attempt, they built a longer tool that could be used to solve the task. Because crows failed to
immediately craft tools that were functional, it cannot be excluded that they may have learned specific
contingencies to solve the task.
Corvid species not known to habitually use tools in the wild also exhibit impressive skills in
solving problems by using tools. Possibly the most famous case is that of rooks (Corvus frugilegus). Bird
and Emery (2009) conducted a series of object-dropping experiments demonstrating that these birds are
capable of tool selectivity on the basis of size and shape. Rooks were presented with a set of tools
differing in one feature (e.g., size) and with an object-dropping apparatus, a transparent box with a baited,
collapsible platform in the inside and a vertical tube on the top. To solve the task, birds were required to
select a functional tool (i.e., an object that could fit into the tube) and to drop it into the vertical tube of
the apparatus, an action that would collapse the internal platform thus releasing the food reward. In the
size selectivity test, rooks could choose between three stones of different sizes and they were tested in two
conditions. In the first half of trials, stones of all sizes were functional (Wide tube condition), whereas, in
the second half of trials, only the small stones could fit into the apparatus (Narrow tube condition). Rooks
were reported to have immediately switched their preference for large stones in the Wide tube condition
to small stones in the Narrow tube condition. In the shape selectivity test, rooks were provided with two
stones of different shapes and they were again tested in the Wide and Narrow tube conditions. Rooks
selected and correctly oriented long stones (over non-functional round stones) in the Narrow tube
condition, when only vertically oriented long stones were functional (Bird & Emery, 2009). The authors
found no evidence that rooks’ preference toward tools of appropriate size and shape emerged through
learning, such that birds may have adjusted their selection by inferring whether the tools were functional
on the basis of the physical properties of the objects. In a follow-up test, Bird and Emery (2009) showed
that rooks can acquire food rewards from the same apparatus by using sticks, i.e., tools that differed from
the ones they have been trained with, and that required a different technique. Rooks dropped heavy sticks
in the same way they had previously dropped the stones, but they adopted a distinct technique to solve the
task with light sticks: they held the tool with their beak and pushed it downward to collapse the baited
platform. In a further set of experiments, Bird and Emery (2009) found that rooks are also capable of
solving a sequential tool use task, as well as fashioning functional tools by removing side branches from
twigs or shaping hook-like tools from straight wire. Common ravens (Corvus corax) are another example
of corvids that can use tools in captivity, although they do not habitually exhibit such behaviors in the
wild. Kabadayi and Osvath (2017) recently reported that one raven successfully solved an object-
dropping task on the first training trial, and subsequently employed an alternative tactic when stones were
unavailable: the bird filled the apparatus with parts of the aviary floor, and thereafter pecked at the
substrate when it came within reach. Although anecdotal, this observation suggests that ravens, like New
Amodio et al. 272
Caledonian crows and rooks, may be capable of using different kinds of tools and devising alternative
strategies to acquire food from the same apparatus.
The flexibility in tool-use behaviors reported in these studies appears to indicate that complex
physical cognition may be widespread within the Corvus genus, a subgroup of corvids that includes
rooks, common ravens, New Caledonian crows and Hawaiian crows. Why tool use in the wild is
exhibited only by New Caledonian crows and Hawaiian crows may be explained by a number of factors,
including stronger inborn predispositions for manipulating tools (Amodio et al., 2018; Kenward et al.,
2005, 2006), as well as idiosyncratic features of their habitats (e.g., reduced risk of predation, lack of
extractive foraging competitors; Rutz & St Clair, 2012). However, the Corvidae is a large family
encompassing more than 100 species, arranged in 25 genera (Ericson et al., 2005). Given that physical
problem solving has been studied predominantly in the Corvus genus, it is not clear whether the
sophisticated physical cognition reported in this subgroup is shared with more distantly related species of
corvids. Gaining insight into this issue will have fundamental implications with regard to our
understanding of the evolution of physical cognition in corvids.
To date, it has been shown that Eurasian jays (Garrulus glandarius) and California scrub-jays
(Aphelocoma californica) can be trained to solve object-dropping tasks (Cheke et al., 2011; Logan et al.,
2016; Miller et al., 2016). In the case of Eurasian jays, a member of the Garrulus genus, empirical
evidence also suggests that these birds may take into account causal clues to solve tool use tasks. Cheke et
al. (2011) presented Eurasian jays with a series of water displacement tasks that required the insertion of
tools into an apparatus (i.e., a vertical tube filled with liquid) to acquire a reward, which could be reached
only after the liquid had been progressively raised as a result of the insertion of the tools. In the study, the
availability of causal cues was manipulated, such that, in some tasks, jays could choose between an
apparatus or a tool that was functional according to physical principles and one that was not, whereas, in
other tasks, jays had to select a functional apparatus according to arbitrary features such as color, in the
absence of available causal cues or when the available causal cues were counter-intuitive. Cheke et al.
(2011) found that when causal cues were available, jays could learn to choose a functional liquid-filled
apparatus over a non-liquid-filled apparatus containing only air or filled with a solid substrate, and
functional sinking tools over ones that float and therefore fail to raise the water level. When the functional
apparatus could be identified on the basis of arbitrary features rather than causal cues, jays could also
learn to select the functional apparatus, but only in tasks in which the insertion of tools was ‘artificially’
(i.e., caused by the action of a hidden experimenter) associated with a progressive movement of the food
reward. In contrast, jays failed to learn a preference toward the functional apparatus in a counter-intuitive
task. When presented with a modified apparatus formed by one baited narrow tube and two non-baited
wide tubes with different color marks, jays could not learn to drop tools into the functional non-baited
tube, an action that would raise the level of the liquid not only in the functional non-baited tube, but also
in the adjacent baited tube because these tubes were invisibly connected. Thus, the overall performance of
Eurasian jays in this study suggests that these corvids may have acquired tool use behaviors through an
interplay between instrumental learning and causal understanding, with the latter fostering/constraining
the learning process according to whether tasks fit or do not fit with physical principles (Cheke et al.,
2011).
It is important to note that, in the Cheke at al. (2011) study, there are two confounding variables
that may have affected jays’ performance in the task requiring jays to select functional sinking objects
over non-functional floating objects. First, the two kinds of objects differed not only in density, the
physical property that determined its functionality, but also in material (rubber or foam). Second, both
individual birds that were tested had previous experience in dropping rubber tools, but not foam tools, to
solve water displacement tasks. Specifically, both birds had taken part in a previous water displacement
experiment that involved the use of rubber tools and stone tools. Note however that their amount of
experience was quite different: one bird, Hoy, had used rubber tools on 35 occasions, whereas the other
bird, Romero, had used rubber tools only once, and yet Hoy’s performance was no better than Romero’s.
Nonetheless, it cannot be excluded that jays developed a preference toward the functional rubber tool on
the basis of trivial features (e.g., material) or due to a higher familiarity with these objects. Furthermore,
Amodio et al. 273
because the Eurasian jays in Cheke at al. (2011)’s experiment appeared to have learned over trials to
select the tools that were functional, it remains an open question whether these jays are capable of tool
selectivity, as seems to be the case in other corvids, such as the rook and New Caledonian crow (Bird &
Emery, 2009; Chappell & Kacelnik, 2002). To overcome the potential confounds and limitations of
Cheke at al.’s (2011) experiment, here we conducted two tool selectivity tests in which functional and
non-functional tools differed only in one feature (i.e., size in Experiment 1, and shape in Experiment 2),
and were not familiar to the birds in the context of object-dropping tasks. We presented the birds with two
object-dropping tasks that were designed after Bird and Emery’s (2009) size and shape selectivity tests,
and which involved an apparatus closely resembling that used in rooks. Finally, in a third experiment we
explored jays’ capability of using different tools – sticks – to acquire food for the same apparatus.
Method
Subjects
Five hand-raised Eurasian jays of both sexes were tested (females: Chinook, Jaylo, Stuka; males:
Homer, Poe). At the time of testing (October-December 2016), all birds were juveniles (1.5 years). Birds
were group-housed in a large outdoor aviary (20x10x3m) at the Sub-Department of Animal Behaviour,
University of Cambridge. The birds received a maintenance diet of vegetables, eggs, seeds and fruits and
water ad libitum. All birds took part in Experiment 1a. Chinook stopped interacting with the apparatus
and the tools after completing this experiment; therefore, she was excluded from subsequent experiments.
All birds except Chinook were tested in the subsequent Experiments 1b, 2 and 3.
Apparatus
All tests were conducted using an object-dropping apparatus originally designed by Bird and
Emery (2009) and modified for Eurasian jays by Cheke et al. (2011) and Miller et al. (2016). It consisted
of a transparent Perspex box (12x11x11 cm) with a baited but out-of-reach, collapsible platform with a
vertical tube (11.5 cm) on top (Figure 1). Depending on the experimental condition, either a wide tube (Ø
4.2 cm) or a narrow tube (Ø 1.6 cm) was used. To release the food, birds could drop a tool (e.g., a stone)
into the tube, which then caused the internal platform to collapse and food to fall out.
Figure 1
Design and Apparatus Used in Experiment 1
Note. Left panel) Scheme showing the tools (stones or novel objects) and conditions (Wide tube, W; Narrow tube, N) used in
each block (20 consecutive trials) in Experiment 1a and 1b; Right panel) Picture of the Wide tube apparatus (back) and Narrow
tube (front).Amodio et al. 274
General procedure
Birds were tested in visual isolation from other individuals inside an indoor compartment (2x1x3
m). The experimenter placed the apparatus and the tools into the birds’ compartment through an opening
in the mesh wall. In all three experiments, the tools were placed on one side of the apparatus,
approximately 10 cm away from it. The initial position of the bird was not standardized, so that the bird
could be in any location within the compartment at the onset of each trial, i.e., when the stimuli were
presented. In experiments involving multiple tools (Experiments 1 and 2), the tools were equidistant from
the bird when the bird was facing the front side of the apparatus (i.e., the side of the apparatus from which
the food is released). In Experiments 1 and 2, the position of the tools in regards to the apparatus (i.e.,
close, middle, far position) was pseudo-randomized across trials such that a given tool was not presented
in the same position (e.g., middle) on more than two consecutive trials. Live larvae of the mealworm
beetle (Tenebrio molitor) were used as food rewards. The baiting of the apparatus occurred out of view.
In all experiments the maximum duration of a trial was set to 2 min. However, in Experiment 3,
one additional minute was allowed if the bird was interacting with the tool by the cut-off time. The
additional minute could be added up to two times, such that the maximum duration of a trial was 4 min.
This procedural detail was set during the very first trial, when it was noticed that the jay being tested
required substantially more efforts to achieve the correct manipulation of stick tools. Typically, birds
were given one session of 10 trials per day. However, if a bird did not interact with the tool(s) at all
during a trial, testing was interrupted and continued on the next session, with the no-interaction trial being
repeated. For example, if a bird completed trials 1-8 in session 1 and subsequently it stopped interacting
with the stimuli on trial 9, then on the next session the bird received trial 9 again, and potentially 10
additional trials, namely trial 10 (from session 1) and trials 11-19 from session 2. Birds did not receive
more than 11 trials per session. For the above example, this means that trial 20 from session 2 was
presented on the subsequent session, together with trials 21-29 from session 3 and so on. Subjects did not
have access to their maintenance diet for 1 hr prior to testing to ensure that they were motivated to eat
multiple food rewards during testing. Water was accessible ad libitum during testing. All experiments
were recorded using a GoPro® Hero 4 video-camera and subsequently analyzed.
Specific Procedure and Materials
Refresh Training
All birds had previously been trained to drop hollow metal balls (Ø 2 cm, 4 g) inside the
apparatus as part of a previous study (Miller et al., 2016). All birds had also been further exposed to the
wide tube apparatus and metal balls in a non-systematic manner. This occurred during January-April
2016, as part of the training of one of us (PA) in working with the jays. Critically, however, the birds had
no prior experience of dropping any of the specific tools used in this study (stones and sticks). We
conducted a short refresher training to ensure that the birds were still familiar with the task and would
insert stones into the apparatus. During training, the birds were presented with the wide tube apparatus
and a single tool placed approximately 10 cm away from it. In the first five trials, they were provided with
the metal ball (i.e., the tool with which they had previously been trained) and in the following five trials
with a medium stone (4.2 ± 0.5 g). All birds successfully solved these 10 trials before testing started.
Experiment 1: Size Selectivity Test
The design of this experiment closely followed the ‘Stone Size Test’ conducted by Bird and
Emery (2009) on rooks. We used both the wide and the narrow tube apparatuses in the test. In Experiment
1a, stones of three sizes – large (7.8 ± 0.2 g), medium (4.2 ± 0.5 g), small (2.2 ± 0.1 g) – were provided as
tools. With the wide tube, stones of all sizes were functional (i.e., all stones could fit inside the tube),
whereas with the narrow tube, only the small stone was functional because the two larger stones did notAmodio et al. 275
fit inside the tube. The experiment was composed of four blocks (Figure 1). In Block 1 (trials 1-20), jays
were presented only with the wide tube apparatus to evaluate their potential preference for a specific tool,
namely the small versus the large stone. In Block 2 (trials 21-40), both the narrow tube (10 trials in total)
and the wide tube (10 trials in total) were used to investigate whether the jays would spontaneously select
the small stone when this was the only functional tool (Narrow tube condition), and if they would express
the same preference when all stones were functional (Wide tube condition). The two apparatuses were
presented in a pseudo-randomized order such that the jays were not presented with the same type of tube
on more than three consecutive trials. In Block 3 (trials 41-60), only the narrow tube apparatus was used.
This block was designed to facilitate jays’ learning about the functional features of the small stone.
Finally, in Block 4 (trials 61-80), birds received a further test with the narrow and wide tubes that
followed the procedure of Block 2. This experiment differed from the ‘Stone Selectivity Test’ conducted
by Bird and Emery (2009) in two respects. Rooks tested in the latter study received a smaller number of
trials (i.e., 60 trials), and they experienced only the wide tube apparatus in the first 30 trials and only the
narrow tube apparatus in the remaining 30 trials.
After noting that the jays appeared to have switched to using the small stone more often in Block
4 than in Block 2, in Experiment 1b, we investigated whether jays may have learned to select the small
stone based on its functional property, namely its size. To that end, Experiment 1b was a transfer task
with novel objects, which differed from the stones in irrelevant perceptual properties namely color, shape
and material. In the same way that the stones previously differed in their functional property of size, the
novel objects were large (15 g), medium (10.5 g) and small (5 g) bolts upholstered with red tape. Like
previously, the novel objects of all sizes were functional with the wide tube but only the small one could
fit into the narrow tube. Given that jays had had two blocks of the two apparatuses in a counterbalanced
order in Experiment 1a, they also received two blocks in Experiment 1b (Figure 1): Block 5 (trials 81-
100) and Block 6 (trials 101-120). In each block, there were 10 trials with the narrow tube in total and 10
trials with the wide tube, the order of which was pseudo-randomized such that the jays were not presented
with the same type of tube on more than three consecutive trials.
Experiment 2: Shape Selectivity Test
The design of this experiment closely followed the ‘Stone Orientation Test’ used by Bird and
Emery (2009) for rooks. In Experiment 2, jays were provided with two shapes of stone tools: long stones
(approximately 2.4x1.0 cm) and round stones (approximately 1.8x1.9 cm). Birds received a total of 20
trials, 10 of which were with the narrow tube and 10 of which were with the wide tube. The order in
which birds were presented with the narrow and wide tubes was pseudo-randomized such that the jays
were not presented with the same type of tube on more than three consecutive trials. To successfully solve
the task in the Narrow tube condition, birds had to select the long stone and orient it vertically to insert it
into the tube. In the wide tube condition, both stones were functional and no specific rotation of the tool
was required. This experiment and the equivalent test previously conducted on rooks (Bird & Emery,
2009) differed in the number of trials (40 trials in rooks) and in the fact that the two apparatuses were not
counterbalanced within sessions of trials: rooks first received 20 trials with the wide tube apparatus, and
subsequently 20 trials with the narrow tube apparatus.
Experiment 3: Stick Tool Test
The design of this experiment closely matched the ‘Stick Use Test’ conducted by Bird and Emery
(2009). In Experiment 3, jays were provided with one of two types of sticks as a tool: a twig (11 cm long,
3.0 g) or a wooden skewer (11 cm long, 0.4 g). When provided with the twig, jays could solve the task by
dropping it, just like they previously did with stones (No Push technique). Due to its lighter weight, the
wooden skewer required jays to hold it in their beak and push it downwards to collapse the baited
platform (Push technique). A total of 10 trials with the wide tube were conducted. On each trial, jays were
provided with only one type of tool (the wooden skewer or the twig), the order of which was pseudo-Amodio et al. 276
randomized such that jays did not receive the same tool on more than two consecutive trials. In contrast to
this experiment, rooks tested by Bird and Emery (2009) received more trials (20 trials) and they were
presented consistently with the heavy stick in the first 10 trials, and then the light sticks in the final 10
trials.
Data Analysis
All data were analyzed with R.3.5. using the RStudio 1.1.447 wrapper (RStudio Team, 2018). In
Experiment 1, we scored the tool (small, medium or large) selected on each trial. Ordinal-logit models
(package ordinal, Haubo & Christensen, 2018) were used to test whether jays adjusted their preference of
selection i) according to the condition (Wide or Narrow tube), and ii) across blocks (e.g., due to learning).
In all models, the size of the tool (small, medium or large) selected in each trial was treated as ordinal
data and fitted as a response variable. In Experiment 2, we scored the tool (long or round stone) selected
on each trial. Additionally, we scored what kind of manipulation of the long stone was performed on each
trial. Specifically, three kinds of manipulation could be achieved. The long stone could: i) be oriented
vertically prior to the first insertion attempt (Immediate Rotation); ii) be oriented vertically after one or
more failed insertion attempts (Eventual Rotation), or; iii) not be oriented vertically (No Rotation). The
scoring of these behaviors had been planned before the experiment was conducted, based on the results
previously reported in rooks on this test (Bird & Emery, 2009). Before conducting the experiment, we had
planned to analyze the kind of rotation of the long stone as a three outcomes variable, i.e. Immediate
Rotation – Eventual Rotation – No Rotation. However, two out of four individuals performed only
Immediate Rotation or Eventual Rotation, such that we decided to i) collapse the variable into a binary
one by merging Immediate Rotation and Eventual Rotation into a single outcome (Rotation), and; ii)
report a descriptive analysis with regard to the two particular kinds of rotation that were observed.
Binomial GLMM (package lme4, Bates et al., 2015) and GLM (package stats, R Core Team and
contributors worldwide, 2018) were used to test whether the kind of tool selected and the kind of
manipulation of the long tool – analyzed as Rotation vs No Rotation – varied i) according to the condition
and, ii) across blocks (e.g., due to learning). Models were calculated at maximum complexity but in case
of overfitting we reduced the model by dropping the least important single terms. In Experiment 3, we
scored: i) whether a trial was successful, ii) the technique utilized to solve the task with stick tools (i.e.,
Push technique, No Push technique), and iii) the number of insertion attempts until successfully inserting
the tool into the apparatus. The scoring of successful trials and the tool use technique had been planned
before the experiment was conducted, based on the results previously reported in rooks on this test (Bird
& Emery, 2009). We decided to score the number of insertion attempts during the testing phase as it
became clear that this variable was very informative of inter-individual differences in performances. The
data were analyzed descriptively.
All datasets and R scripts used to conduct the statistical analyses are available at
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3669859. In addition, a previous version of the statistical analyses can be
found at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3471706. The only difference between the two analyses is that, in
the final version, we have included the bird identity as a random effect in Models 1-3 and 5. This was
done during the revision of the manuscript, in response to a comment made by a reviewer.
Results
Inter-observer Reliability
PA coded all videos and Benjamin Farrar (BF) acted as a naïve coder, analyzing 20% of videos
for each experiment. Inter-observer reliability was excellent: for Experiment 1 (size of selected tools:
Cohen’s kappa k = .986, p < .0001) and Experiment 2 (shape of selected tools: Cohen’s kappa k = 1, p <
.0001; kind of rotation of the tool: Cohen’s kappa k = 1, pAmodio et al. 277
Experiment 1: Size Selectivity Test
In Block 1, one bird (Stuka) received 15 instead of 20 trials due to an experimental error. Overall,
the proportion of trials on which jays selected each type of stone did not differ across the conditions
(Model 1, Table 1, see also Figure 2); for example the proportions of trials on which jays selected the
small stone appeared to be similar when presented with the narrow tube apparatus and when presented
with the wide tube apparatus. Hence jays did not adjust the selection of tools according to the diameter of
the tube. We further tested whether the proportion of selection of the three stones varied across blocks by
comparing jays’ performance in Block 1 with each of the three subsequent blocks. The performance in
Block 1 represents the spontaneous preference exhibited by the jays when all tools were functional;
therefore, this block was considered as a meaningful reference to analyze changes of preference through
dyadic comparisons among blocks. Model 1 (Table 1) showed that the proportions of selection of the
three stones in Block 1 were comparable to those observed in the two subsequent blocks, but significantly
different from the proportions of selection in Block 4. This result is likely to be explained by the variation
in preference for the large and the small stones throughout blocks (Figure 3). A stronger preference
towards the large stone appeared in Block 1 and was retained across Block 2 and 3, but it became less
pronounced together with an increase in preference for the small stone in Block 4 (Figure 3). To
investigate whether the slight shift in the jays’ preference for the small tool may have been due to its
functional feature represented by size, we compared the jays’ performance in the last block when tools
were stones (Experiment 1a; Block 4) with the first block when tools were novel objects (Experiment 1b:
Block 5). One subject (Chinook) was excluded from this analysis because she did not participate in
Experiment 1b. Consistent with the previous analysis, jays’ performance was comparable across
conditions (Model 2, Table 1). Model 2 also indicated that the proportions of selection of the three stones
in Block 4 were similar to the proportions of selection of the three novel objects in Block 5 (Table 1;
Figure 3). This means that jays showed a similar pattern of behaviors with the stones and the novel
objects. Together, these results are consistent with the possibility that jays transferred their pattern of
preference between tools of different appearances. However, because we did not test jays’ preference for
the three novel objects in a naïve group of birds, we cannot rule out the possibility that jays’ performance
in Block 5 resulted from a difference in preference for the novel objects over stones that was not
influenced by their experience in Experiment 1a.
Table 1
Results from Ordinal-logit Models Examining Whether the Proportions of Selection of the Three Tools Differed: i) According to
the Condition (Wide or Narrow tube) and ii) Across Blocks of Trials
Model Variable Estimate SE z p
Narrow Tube - Wide Tube -0.14 0.27 -0.52 .60
Block 1 - Block 2 0.30 0.31 0.94 .35
1
Block 1 - Block 3 -0.04 0.39 -0.09 .92
Block 1 - Block 4 -0.74 0.31 -2.37 .02 *
Narrow Tube - Wide Tube -0.37 0.33 -1.13 .26
2
Block 4 (Exp. 1a) - Block 5 (Exp. 1b) -0.20 0.33 -0.61 .54
Narrow Tube - Wide Tube -0.60 0.32 -1.83 .07
3
Block 5 - Block 6 -0.72 0.33 -2.20 .03 *
Note. Model 1 focused on Experiment 1a; Model 2 focused on the last block of Experiment 1a and the first block of Experiment
1b; Model 3 focused on Experiment 1b. SE: standard error; z : z value; p: p value. ‘*’ represents p < 0.05.Amodio et al. 278
Figure 2
Trial by Trial Description of the Behavior in Experiment 1a (Block 1-4) and 1b (Block 5, 6)
Note. In trials with the narrow tube apparatus (blue dots), only the small tool was functional, whereas in trials with the wide tube
apparatus (yellow dots), all tools (i.e., small, medium and large tool) were functional.
Finally, we compared jays’ preference of selection of the three novel objects between the two
blocks of Experiment 1b. Model 3 (Table 1) revealed that the proportions of selection of the three tools in
Block 5 and Block 6 were significantly different. This result could be explained by the concurrent
stronger preference for the small tool and decreased preference for the large tool in Block 6 (Figure 3).
This pattern first appeared in Block 4, was then retained in Block 5, and finally increased in Block 6
(Figure 3). Supporting previous findings, Model 3 also indicated that jays’ performance was again
consistent between conditions.Amodio et al. 279
Figure 3
Box and Whisker Plot Showing the Proportions of Selection of the Small, Medium and Large Tool in Experiment 1a (Block 1-4)
and Experiment 1b (Block 5,6)
Note. In Block 1, all stones were functional because the wide tube apparatus was used in all trials. In Block 3, only the small
stone was functional because the narrow tube apparatus was used in all trials. In each of the remaining blocks (i.e., Blocks 2, 4, 5,
and 6), half of trials were conducted with the wide tube apparatus and the other half of trials were conducted with the narrow tube
apparatus. In the plot, the two conditions (Narrow and Wide tube) are grouped for Blocks 2, 4, 5, and 6, as jays’ performance was
comparable across conditions (Model 1, Table 1).
Experiment 2: Shape Selectivity Test
When presented with a choice of two stones of different shapes, jays showed a pronounced
preference for the long stone in both conditions (Narrow tube: 77.5 ± 7.5% trials; Wide tube: 77.5 ± 4.8%
trials; Mean ± SE). The GLM analysis indicated that jays’ preference for the long stone was stable across
conditions and blocks (Model 4, Table 2).
In line with previous findings in rooks (Bird & Emery, 2009), the jays performed three kinds of
manipulation when the Long stone was selected. The tool was oriented vertically (Figure 4) either prior to
the first insertion attempt (Immediate Rotation) or after one or more unsuccessful attempts (Eventual
Rotation). Alternatively, the tool was oriented horizontally with respect to the tube (No Rotation, Figure
4). However, not all individuals performed the three kinds of manipulation of the long stone. In particular,
Homer never performed Eventual Rotation, whereas Poe never performed Immediate Rotation (Figure 5).
To investigate whether the manipulation of the long stone differed between conditions we fitted a GLMM
with a binary outcome variable (No Rotation-Rotation). The manipulation of the long stone differed
between the conditions (Model 5, Table 2) with higher frequencies of rotation performed with the Narrow
tube (Narrow tube: 79.1 ± 10.1% trials; Mean ± SE). However, the correct orientation of the long stone inAmodio et al. 280
the Narrow tube condition was often achieved after one or more incorrect attempts of insertion (Eventual
Rotation: 55.3 ± 21.1% of trials with the narrow tube in which the long stone was rotated; Figure 5).
Therefore, this finding cannot be taken as evidence that jays had a solid understanding of the affordance
of the task, because, in this case, they would have correctly oriented the stone before the first insertion
attempt (Immediate Rotation). Model 5 (Table 2) also indicated that the manipulation of the long stone
was stable across blocks.
Table 2
Results from GLM (Model 4) and GLMM (Model 5) Examining Data of Experiment 2
Model Variable Estimate SE z p
Intercept -1.38 0.47 -2.94 .003 **
4 Narrow Tube - Wide Tube -0.01 0.54 -0.03 .98
Block 1 - Block 2 0.29 0.54 0.53 .60
Intercept 1.89 0.97 1.94 .053
5 Narrow Tube - Wide Tube -2.84 0.79 -3.61 .0003 ***
Block 1 - Block 2 0.006 0.70 0.009 .99
Note. Model 4 tested whether the proportions of selection of the tools (long and round stones) differed: i) according to the
condition (Wide or Narrow tube), and; ii) across blocks of trials. Model 5 tested whether the proportions in which the long stone
was oriented vertically (i.e., Immediate Rotation, Eventual Rotation) or it was not oriented vertically (No Rotation) differed: i)
according to the condition (Wide or Narrow tube), and; ii) across blocks of trials. ‘**’ and ‘***’ represent p < 0.01 and p< 0.001,
respectively.
Experiment 3: Stick Tool Test
All subjects solved the task by using a stick as a tool (Table 3). However, the insertion rate was
extremely variable: Homer 9/10 trials, Jaylo 8/10 trials, Poe 2/10 trials, Stuka 1/10 trials. Similarly, the
number of insertion attempts was also quite variable among subjects (Table 3). The success rate matched
the insertion rate for all subjects except for Jaylo, who did not collapse the platform in three trials in
which the tool was inserted into the apparatus. In most of the successful trials (77%), jays collapsed the
platform of the apparatus by actively pushing downward on the stick (Push technique). The technique was
adopted not only with light wooden skewers but also with twigs. In 23% of successful trials, the insertion
of the twig into the apparatus was sufficient to collapse the platform in the absence of active pushing (No
Push Technique). The reason for the active pushing with the heavy stick can likely be explained by the
insertion technique used by the birds. Instead of dropping the stick as they did with stones, birds typically
held the stick near one end and appeared to carefully steer it inside the tube (Figure 4). As a result of these
seemingly gentle movements, the heavy stick likely did not always hit the platform with enough force to
collapse it. All birds used the Push technique at least once. Two subjects (Homer and Poe) solved the task
by using both techniques.Amodio et al. 281 Figure 4 Eurasian Jay Being Tested in Experiment 2 and Experiment 3 Note. A-B) Different kinds of manipulation of the Long stone: No Rotation (A), Rotation (B); C-F) Sequence of actions describing the Push technique: the wooden skewer is picked up near one end (C), steered inside the tube (D) and pushed downward (E) causing the collapse of the internal platform of the apparatus (F).
Amodio et al. 282 Figure 5 Trial by Trial Description of the Behavior in Experiment 2 Note. On the Y axis it is shown: the kind of tool selected (long stone, Long; round stone, Round) and, for the long stone, the kind of manipulation achieved (Immediate Rotation, I.R.; Eventual Rotation, E.R.; No Rotation, N.R.) on each trial. In trials with the narrow tube apparatus (blue dots), only the vertically-oriented long stone was functional, whereas in trials with the wide tube apparatus (yellow dots), both the long and the round were functional, and no specific orientation was required to fit the tool into the apparatus.
Amodio et al. 283
Table 3
Trial by Trial Description of the Behavior in Experiment 3
Homer Jaylo
Trial Stick Kind Inserted N°Attempts Technique Stick Kind Inserted N°Attempts Technique
1 Skewer Y 2 Push Skewer N 14
2 Twig N 5 Twig Y 12 Push
3 Skewer Y 2 Push Skewer N 12
4 Skewer Y 2 Push Skewer Y 7
5 Twig Y 2 No Push Twig Y 7 Push
6 Twig Y 13 Push Twig Y 3 Push
7 Skewer Y 1 Push Skewer Y 9
8 Twig Y 3 Push Twig Y 5 Push
9 Twig Y 1 No Push Skewer Y 8
10 Skewer Y 3 Push Twig Y 1 Push
Poe Stuka
Trial Stick Kind Inserted N°Attempts Technique Stick Kind Inserted N°Attempts Technique
1 Skewer N 16 Twig N 1
2 Twig Y 11 No Push Twig Y 5 Push
3 Skewer N 16 Skewer N 4
4 Skewer Y 9 Push Twig N 4
5 Twig N 15 Twig N 2
6 Twig N 0 Skewer N 0
7 Skewer N 2 Skewer N 0
8 Twig N 0 Twig N 0
9 Skewer N 0 Skewer N 0
10 Twig N 0 Skewer N 0
Note. In successful trials (blue cells), the technique that was used is reported. Blank cells correspond to unsuccessful trials.
Discussion
Here we investigated the tool use abilities of Eurasian jays by exploring whether this species of
corvid can select appropriate tools on the basis of their physical properties, namely size and shape, and
solve a familiar task by using novel tools, sticks. Jays showed no evidence of tool selectivity, i.e., they
could not immediately adjust their choice according to the functionality of the tools but were capable of
using sticks as tools. In the size selectivity test (Experiment 1), jays initially exhibited a preference for the
large stone regardless of whether this tool was functional. Thus, jays seem to have failed to encode the
relevant feature of objects and to adjust their selection of a tool according to the features of the apparatus.
However, jays’ performance also suggests that they may be capable of altering their selection of tools
through learning; across trials, jays reduced their initial preference in favor of the only tool that was
functional in both conditions, namely the small stone. Subsequently, when presented with novel objects
(Experiment 1b), jays initially expressed a pattern of selection that was comparable to that observed
toward stones in the final block of the previous test (Experiment 1a), but subsequently further increasedAmodio et al. 284
their preference for the small tool. This result is consistent with the possibility that jays transferred their
preference of which tool to use based on size despite other perceptual differences between the objects
(perhaps through a process of generalization, cf. Shettleworth, 2010). In the shape selectivity test
(Experiment 2), jays exhibited a pronounced preference for the functional tool (long stone) in both
conditions, but they tended to perform the correct manipulation of the tool only when needed (Narrow
tube condition). However, the descriptive analysis showed that jays often achieved the correct
manipulation of the tool after one or more failed attempts of insertion (Eventual Rotation) rather than
before the first insertion attempt (Immediate Rotation). Therefore, it is likely that jays correctly oriented
the tools through trial-and-error, in the lack of a full understanding of the objects’ properties and
functionality. In the stick tool test (Experiment 3), all birds were capable of using a novel tool and of
acquiring food rewards from a familiar apparatus through a novel strategy (i.e., Push technique). These
results also represent the first demonstration that Eurasian jays can use sticks as tools.
The overall pattern of our results supports previous reports of learning forming the basis of
Eurasian jay tool use (Cheke et al., 2011). The relatively fast learning of a preference for the functional
tools in the latter study may have been facilitated by the fact that birds had already experienced the
functional sinking objects as tools before the study (Cheke et al., 2011) and that the functional and non-
functional tools differed not only in the relevant characteristic (density) but also in another feature
(material). Further, in line with Cheke et al. (2011), we found important individual differences in tool use
skills in Eurasian jays. One bird, Homer, rapidly developed a clear preference for the functional small tool
in Experiment 1 (Figure 2) compared with the other jays that were tested; Homer more frequently
oriented the tool correctly before the first insertion attempt (Immediate Rotation) in Experiment 2 (Figure
5) and solved more trials (9/10) and by using both techniques in Experiment 3 (Table 3). A possible
explanation for the performance of this individual may be linked to his experimental history. Homer was
used as the demonstrator in a previous tool use study (Miller et al., 2016) and thus has received a more
extensive exposure to the object-dropping apparatus than the other individuals we tested.
Given that neither Eurasian jays nor rooks habitually use tools in the wild, it is interesting to
compare the performance of the jays in this study with that of the rooks tested by Bird and Emery (2009).
Importantly, however, one must exhibit caution in doing so given that these were two separate
experiments, but tentative comparisons might yield fruit for further work in which the two groups of birds
could be directly compared. When tested in a similar size selectivity test, rooks immediately switched
their preference from the large stone to the small stone when the latter was the only functional tool (Bird
& Emery, 2009). In the shape selectivity test, rooks, like jays in this study, expressed a pronounced
preference for the long stone regardless of the condition, and higher frequencies of rotation in presence of
the narrow tube (Bird & Emery, 2009). Crucially however, rooks often performed Immediate Rotation
rather than Eventual Rotation in the Narrow tube condition. Taken together, the performances of these
species may indicate that Eurasian jays may have more limited tool selectivity abilities than rooks (Bird &
Emery, 2009). However, this possibility should be considered with caution given the methodological and
ontogenetic differences between our experiments and those conducted by Bird and Emery (2009).
Specifically, in Bird and Emery’s (2009) selectivity tests, rooks were systematically presented with the
wide tube apparatus in the first half of trials, and subsequently with the narrow tube apparatus in the
remaining trials. In contrast, the jays tested in this study did not experience such a clear sequence of
exposure to the two apparatuses, as the presentation of the two apparatuses most often co-occurred within
the same block of trials. Although apparently minor, it cannot be excluded that this methodological
difference may have influenced the performances of the two species.
Another potentially relevant difference between the studies is that jays tested in this study were
juveniles (1.5 years old at test date) whereas the rooks tested by Bird and Emery (2009) were adults at the
time of testing. Thus, it cannot be excluded that developmental differences or limited experience in
manipulating objects may have influenced the comparison between the species. Note that the good
performance of juvenile New Caledonian crows in tool use tasks (Jelbert et al., 2014; Logan et al., 2014)
may not be very indicative here, because this species exhibits a strong inclination to manipulate tools as
early in development as a few weeks post-fledging (Kenward et al., 2005), which is absent in otherAmodio et al. 285
species of corvids that do not habitually use tools in the wild. Only future research, however, will allow
us to reach firmer conclusions regarding the role played by ontogeny and previous experience in the
acquisition of tool use proficiency among species of corvids that do not use tools in the wilds by
systematically testing the influence of these factors in a direct comparison between different species.
In regard to the stick tool test, jays’ performance appears to be similar to that reported in rooks
(Bird & Emery, 2009). Both species appear to exhibit good levels of flexibility in using novel tools to
solve a familiar task. Supporting previous findings in rooks (Bird & Emery, 2009), jays’ use of sticks as
tools also indicate that New Caledonian crow-like adaptations in beak morphology and vision (Martinho
et al., 2014; Matsui et al., 2016; Troscianko et al., 2012) are not essential to achieve basic manipulations
of stick tools. Ultimately, to directly assess the question of whether the sophisticated physical cognition
reported in the Corvus genus is shared with more distantly related species of corvids, future work will
have to encompass large-scale comparative studies, where different species can be directly compared
using the same or equivalent methodology.
In summary, after being trained to use stones as tools, the Eurasian jays were able to generalize to
using sticks and to adopt a novel technique on the same apparatus, i.e., collapsing the internal platform by
actively pushing a tool against it. What appears to be in contrast to the previously reported results for
rooks and New Caledonian crows is that the Eurasian jays failed to immediately adjust their selection of
tools according to their functionality. However, the jays’ performance indicates that these birds were
capable of learning to optimize their behavior, as they progressively developed a preference for the
smaller size tool, which was the only tool that was functional in both conditions, and performed the
required manipulation of the functional long-shaped tool.
Authors’ Contribution
SJ and PA designed the study with the help of NSC. PA collected and analyzed the data. The first
draft of the manuscript was written by PA with critical additions and revisions by LO, NSC and SJ. MB
provided essential comments during revisions of the manuscript.
Acknowledgments
P.A. received financial support by the Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. S.A.J., M.B. and N.S.C.
were funded by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework
Programme (FP7/2007-2013)/ERC Grant Agreement No. 3399933, awarded to N.S.C.
Conflict of Interest
None declared.
References
Amodio, P., Jelbert, S. A., & Clayton, N. S. (2018). The interplay between psychological predispositions and skill
learning in the evolution of tool use. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 20, 130–137.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.01.002
Auersperg, A. M. I., von Bayern, A. M. P., Gajdon, G. K., Huber, L., & Kacelnik, A. (2011). Flexibility in problem
solving and tool use of kea and new caledonian crows in a multi access box paradigm. PLoS ONE, 6(6).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020231
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal
of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01
Bird, C. D., & Emery, N. J. (2009). Insightful problem solving and creative tool modification by captive nontool-
using rooks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(25),
10370–10375. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0901008106Amodio et al. 286
Chappell, J., & Kacelnik, A. (2002). Tool selectivity in a non-primate, the New Caledonian crow (Corvus
moneduloides). Animal Cognition, 5(2), 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-002-0130-2
Cheke, L. G., Bird, C. D., & Clayton, N. S. (2011). Tool-use and instrumental learning in the Eurasian jay (Garrulus
glandarius). Animal Cognition, 14(3), 441–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-011-0379-4
Emery, N. J., & Clayton, N. S. (2004). The mentality of crows: Convergent evolution of intelligence in corvids and
apes. Science, 306(5703), 1903–1907. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1098410
Ericson, P. G. P., Jansén, A.-L., Johansson, U. S., & Ekman, J. (2005). Inter-generic relationships of the crows, jays,
magpies and allied groups (Aves: Corvidae) based on nucleotide sequence data. Journal of Avian Biology,
36(3), 222–234. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0908-8857.2001.03409.x
Haubo, R., & Christensen, B. (2018). Ordinal: Regression models for ordinal data. http://www.cran.r-
project.org/package=ordinal
Holzhaider, J., Gray, R., & Hunt, G. (2010). The development of pandanus tool manufacture in wild New
Caledonian crows. Behaviour, 147(5-6), 553–586. https://doi.org/10.1163/000579510X12629536366284
Hunt, G. R., & Gray, R. D. (2003). Diversification and cumulative evolution in New Caledonian crow tool
manufacture. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 270(1517), 867-874. https://doi.org/
10.1098/rspb.2002.2302
Hunt, G. R., Rutledge, R. B., & Gray, R. D. (2006). The right tool for the job: What strategies do wild New
Caledonian crows use? Animal Cognition, 9(4), 307–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-006-0047-2
Jelbert, S. A., Hosking, R. J., Taylor, A. H., & Gray, R. D. (2018). Mental template matching is a potential cultural
transmission mechanism for New Caledonian crow tool manufacturing traditions. Scientific Reports, 8(1),
8956. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-27405-1
Jelbert, S. A., Miller, R., Schiestl, M., Boeckle, M., Cheke, L. G., Gray, R. D., Taylor, A. H., & Clayton, N. S.
(2019). New Caledonian crows infer the weight of objects from observing their movements in a breeze.
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 286(1894), 20182332.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.2332
Jelbert, S. A., Taylor, A. H., Cheke, L. G., Clayton, N. S., & Gray, R. D. (2014). Using the Aesop’s fable paradigm
to investigate causal understanding of water displacement by new caledonian crows. PLoS ONE, 9(3),
e92895. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0092895
Kabadayi, C. & Osvath, M. (2017). Ravens parallel great apes in flexible planning for tool-use and bartering.
Science, 357(6347), 202-204. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam8138
Kenward, B., Rutz, C., Weir, A. A. S., & Kacelnik, A. (2006). Development of tool use in New Caledonian crows:
Inherited action patterns and social influences. Animal Behaviour, 72(6), 1329–1343.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.04.007
Kenward, B., Weir, A. A. S., Rutz, C., & Kacelnik, A. (2005). Tool manufacture by naive juvenile crows. Nature,
433(7022), 112-121. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03294
Klump, B. C., Cantat, M., & Rutz, C. (2019). Raw-material selectivity in hook-tool-crafting New Caledonian crows.
Biology Letters, 15(2), 20180836. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2018.0836
Klump, B. C., Masuda, B. M., St Clair, J. J. H., & Rutz, C. (2018). Preliminary observations of tool-processing
behaviour in Hawaiian crows Corvus hawaiiensis. Communicative & Integrative Biology, 11(4), e1509637.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2018.1509637
Knaebe, B., Taylor, A. H. G., Elliffe, D. M., & Gray, R. D. (2017). New Caledonian crows show behavioural
flexibility when manufacturing their tools. Behaviour, 154(1), 65–91. https://doi.org/10.1163/1568539X-
00003411
Logan, C. J., Harvey, B. D., Schlinger, B. A., & Rensel, M. (2016). Western scrub-jays do not appear to attend to
functionality in Aesop’s Fable experiments. PeerJ, 4, e1707. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1707
Logan, C. J., Jelbert, S. A., Breen, A. J., Gray, R. D., & Taylor, A. H. (2014). Modifications to the Aesop’s fable
paradigm change New Caledonian crow performances. PLoS ONE, 9(7), e103049.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103049
Martinho, A., Burns, Z. T., Von Bayern, A. M. P., & Kacelnik, A. (2014). Monocular tool control, eye dominance,
and laterality in New Caledonian crows. Current Biology, 24(24), 2930–2934.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.10.035
Matsui, H., Hunt, G. R., Oberhofer, K., Ogihara, N., McGowan, K. J., Mithraratne, K., Yamasaki, T., Gray, R. D., &
Izawa, E.-I. (2016). Adaptive bill morphology for enhanced tool manipulation in New Caledonian crows.
Scientific Reports, 6(1), 22776. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep22776
Miller, R., Logan, C. J., Lister, K., & Clayton, N. S. (2016). Eurasian jays do not copy the choices of conspecifics,
but they do show evidence of stimulus enhancement. PeerJ, 4, e2746. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2746Amodio et al. 287
R Core Team and contributors worldwide. (2018). The R stats package [Computer software]. http://cran.r-
project.org/web/packages/STAT/index
RStudio Team. (2018). RStudio: Integrated development environment for R (Version 1.1.447) [Computer software].
Mackintosh. http://www.rstudio.org
Rutz, C., Klump, B. C., Komarczyk, L., Leighton, R., Kramer, J., Wischnewski, S., Sugasawa, S., Morrissey, M. B.,
James, R., St Clair, J. J. H., Switzer, R. A., & Masuda, B. M. (2016). Discovery of species-wide tool use in
the Hawaiian crow. Nature, 537(7620), 403–407. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature19103
Rutz, C., & St Clair, J. J. H. (2012). The evolutionary origins and ecological context of tool use in New Caledonian
crows. Behavioural Processes, 89(2), 153–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2011.11.005
Shettleworth, S. J. (2010). Cognition, evolution, and behavior. Oxford University Press.
Taylor, A. H., Hunt, G. R., Holzhaider, J. C., & Gray, R. D. (2007). Spontaneous metatool use by New Caledonian
crows. Current Biology, 17(17), 1504–1507. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CUB.2007.07.057
Troscianko, J., von Bayern, A. M. P., Chappell, J., Rutz, C., & Martin, G. R. (2012). Extreme binocular vision and a
straight bill facilitate tool use in New Caledonian crows. Nature Communications, 3(1), 1110.
https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2111
von Bayern, A. M. P., Danel, S., Auersperg, A. M. I., Mioduszewska, B., & Kacelnik, A. (2018). Compound tool
construction by New Caledonian crows. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 15676. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-
018-33458-z
Wimpenny, J. H., Weir, A. A. S., Clayton, L., Rutz, C., & Kacelnik, A. (2009). Cognitive processes associated with
sequential tool use in New Caledonian Crows. PLoS ONE, 4(8), e6471.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0006471You can also read
